Abortion? Wait. Guns? Be My Guest.

The news of the mass murder in Roseburg, Oregon barely made my heart race. Oh well, I thought, another nut case with access to guns decided to make a name for himself by executing a bunch of students at a community college. Then, true to form he blew his brains out. Within hours, the oh-so-boring political conversations followed but we’ll be back to normal right after the bodies of the victims are laid to rest. We’ll be back to listening to Donald Trump but in a short while there will be more “Breaking News” from somewhere else in the country.

In response to the murders, liberals in Congress once again are asking for more controls on the sale of guns. They do not suggest that it will stop the violence in its tracks, just that it might deter the would-be murderer and maybe save a few lives. Conservatives, of course, decry any more regulations, especially a national waiting period and/or background checks. It’s as if they actually want the next mass murderer to be able to walk into Franks Gun Shop and come out with an arsenal, no questions asked. After all, he’s just exercising his precious right to bear arms, right?

It’s funny, though, how those same conservatives think that we should make it almost impossible for a woman to exercise her constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. Pregnant? Oh no, young lady, slow down. Before you make the rash decision to kill your baby, there are a few rules and regulations that you gotta deal with.

For example, when you make your appointment and walk into the abortion clinic, you’re going to see a counselor. These clearly biased counselors will make it sound like abortion is a walk in the park. But you’re lucky that we’re here to clarify. That’s why we’ve passed laws requiring the counselor to tell you all about the dangers of abortion, how that fetus is tantamount to a ten year old Little Leaguer, how you will get breast cancer, who you have other options besides abortion (really?) and that you might ultimately regret your abortion. Sorry, we’re just educating you before you make this important decision.

And once you’ve got all the correct information, we still think you should cool down, not make any rash decisions, think about it a little more. So that’s why we propose a 24 hour WAITING PERIOD before you decide to kill your baby. That’s right. Lest you think you can just willy-nilly exercise your constitutional right to terminate your pregnancy, you need to relax, honey, you need to chill out and think about this. I mean, who are you to think that you can make this decision so quickly?

We’re here to protect the lives of those cute little babies.

But if you have a hankering to shoot up a movie theater, go for it.

Rate this:

Share what you read here:

Like this:

Related

73 Responses to “Abortion? Wait. Guns? Be My Guest.”

Excellent Pat! I am among those who is fine with people owning guns…and also just fine with a national background check and other reasonable rules. There is an irony here for sure and you did a great job pointing it out.

“How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion — mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the ass (just because). Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.
It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right?”

Federal Law on Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess. Posted on May 21, 2012. Federal law prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18.May 21, 2012

I’m a gun owner and I’m pro-choice, the 2 topics are not related and trying to make them so is silly. I understand that are gun laws aren’t comprehensive enough and abortion laws are mostly a crock of sh!t (ie TRAP laws) but I would never equate the two rights and myopically compare the two. This was a silly article that’s neither here nor there, doesn’t enlighten anyone and is drawing a comparison where there isn’t any.

Well,when you compare the number of so-called “pro-lifers” who have been shot by “pro-choicers” against the number of abortion clinic staff who have been shot by so-called “pro-lifers,” I think you’ll find the conflation of the two topics is apt.

It’s a beautifully crafted metal artifact and a testament to the ingenuity and skill of the people who conceived, designed and built it. I have probably fired an average of two bullets per year for the 52 years I’ve owned it.

I was an ordnance officer in the military and responsible for a small but impressive array of weapons from .30 to five-inch caliber. Since mutiny was always a possibility, one of my responsibilities was to keep them out of the hands of nuts, something the NRA isn’t very good at.

I’m just trying to show the hypocricy of the right wingers. And let me tell you, Oubli, the TRAP laws are not a crock of shit. They’ve actually succeeded in closing down a number of clinics across the country. But, sorry this was a “silly” article. Would love to see you write something for us!

Mr Dunkle said: “Hey, wait a minute. A male adolescent needs parental permission to buy a gun. Shouldn’t a female adolescent need parental permission to actually use the “gun” to kill someone? See what happens when you think about things for a while?”

The problem he ignores is the Ted Bundy problem– Bundy was a fetus who grew up to kill a known three dozen young women )they were always young, like the women Mr. Dunkle fantasizes he “rescues”) and possibly two dozen more, according to his own recollection.

Fetuses that become real children run a very real risk of becoming the next Bundy when their mothers don’t nurture them. Mothers who know that they are not ready to nurture a child and choose to have an abortion are protecting the world from a potential Bundy.

However, people like Mr. Dunkle can step in and raise the real child. There are women who, because of their opposition to abortion have children they know they can’t or won’t care to, and many of them think they will nurture their real child but wind up failing early and miserably in the attempt.

So, Mr. Dunkle can prevent the next Ted Bundy or mass shooter simply by nurturing the child for the woman!

I will be more than willing to help him set aside the next eighteen years of his life to devote his talents, his time and his retirement income to raise properly the fetus he wants to arrive at the status of real childhood.

Or maybe he doesn’t care how many children grow up like Ted Bundy or Adam Lanza, etc. Maybe he just wants to feel good knowing no mother can decide how many children she wants to raise.

You can’t. It’s part of the baggage of being a so-called “pro-lifer.” You are so trapped by your attitude toward abortion that you simply cannot envision the need to care for the child that only you wanted.

The secret is to break it down into manageable portions. Start with the sentence about Ted Bundy. Give us your thoughts about one fetus developing into a person who kills 34 to 60 others. I’m sure you can come up with some insights.

The secret is to break it down into manageable portions. Start with the sentence about Ted Bundy. Give us your thoughts about one fetus developing into a person who kills 34 to 60 others. I’m sure you can come up with some insights.

As I said, Mr. Dunkle: You as a so-called “pro-lifer” cannot bring yourself to deal with life beyond the womb.

Were you able to, you would be able to reflect upon why one “innocent unborn” was born to become a murderer of real people. You would wonder if such a destiny is preventable. You would wonder if being a so-called “pro-lifer” would make you an accessory to murder. You would wonder if you have an obligation to nurture children you coerced into this world.

Listen closely: It is not about aborting a potential Ted Bundy, killer of 34-60 young women, but about raising the child you wanted born so that he not be another Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy did not have to grow up to become a murderer. He could have been removed from a sexually, physically and emotionally abused family; his Attention Deficit Disorder could have been identified and dealt with; he could have had suitable adult male role models– but someone like you wasn’t there.

Your response confirms my claim that you cannot address the issue because you are so focused on abortion it prevents you from caring properly for real human life.

It would be nice if you can prove me wrong. But you cannot bring yourself to think about the Bundy phenomenon.

Calling a tail a leg, though, is not name calling. What you’re saying there is I call a young person a human being. Your objection to that is calling a young person a human being does not make her a human being, and my response is I’m just calling her what she is, I’m not making her what she is not..

I put in a link to the law JD claims puts an age limit on buying guns to 18 without parental consent. Apparently, using the link kept the post from being posted. The law does not apply to gun shows or private sales, so as usual JD is wrong.

Mr. Dunkle says: “Calling a tail a leg, though, is not name calling. What you’re saying there is I call a young person a human being. Your objection to that is calling a young person a human being does not make her a human being, and my response is I’m just calling her what she is, I’m not making her what she is not.”

Which is incorrect as well as a deliberate distraction from the issue under discussion, which is his culpability as an accessory to murder when the fetus he demands be brought to term turns out to be another Ted Bundy.

His “translation” of my question about his culpability is “How’s this for a translation — You, Mr. Dunkle, should not try to prevent people from being murdered because one of them might be like Ted Bundy..”

I challenged him to think through the implications of the homicidal results inflicted by a child whose need for nurture he neglects throughout its entire life, just as Bundy was– and Dunkle does what he can to duck the issue.

This is classic behavior from so-called “pro-lifers.” One abortion is everything. Sixty dead women are nothing.

So, for 60 young women, the probability they would be killed by Bundy was 100%.

So, what are you doing to protect fetuses from growing up to be like Bundy or to prevent being killed by someone like him? Most women who want to be mothers do a lot to nurture their children and equip them with the skills life demands.

Are you comfortable with the fact that according to your own estimate 2% of the fetuses you claim to “rescue” will grow up to kill someone else?

I spent eighteen years making sure as best I could (I aimed for 100% and so far have succeeded) that my son would not grow up to go to prison for any reason. If any woman tells me she is going to have an abortion I will base my response on whether I will exert myself 100% to help nurture her child. Some I would, some I wouldn’t. How about you?

rogelio is the only person I’ve heard of who was willing to walk that path. Given a couple of thousand so-called “pro-lifers,” it’s a pretty dismal record for the group. You well deserve the reputation of herding children into the rye, where they can wander toward the cliff.

Trouble is he’ll say one thing then say ten more so I forget what he said first, and second… I go back and see here’s the first thing he said, and realize I can respond to it — “what are you doing to protect fetuses from growing up to be like Bundy…”

Good, OK, here’s what I’m doing. I’m trying to protect innocent folks so people like Bundy won’t think they can kill them..

My challenge is, “I spent eighteen years making sure as best I could (I aimed for 100% and so far have succeeded) that my son would not grow up to go to prison for any reason. If any woman tells me she is going to have an abortion I will base my response on whether I will exert myself 100% to help nurture her child. Some I would, some I wouldn’t. How about you?”
Mr. Dunkle’s response is, “Good, OK, here’s what I’m doing. I’m trying to protect innocent folks so people like Bundy won’t think they can kill them..”

So, his job is basically to provide fresh meat to child molesters (one out of every four females and one out of every six males born in America is molested), to prison guards (one out of every three hundred goes to prison), gun-wielding killers (one out of every 100 is a gun homicide victim), to abusive spouses (one out of every four will experience spousal abuse), to credit card and payday loan predators (one out of every 5 will in effect be enslaved for life by financial fraud), to remedial educators (one out of every 5 will be at risk for school failure) and to welfare system workers (one out of every four will live in poverty).

That doesn’t strike me as being very “pro-life.”

But how does he feel about those odds? And how does he feel about producing victims?

Very interesting that Mr. Dunkle ALWAYS refers to fetuses as female, even though about half of them are male.

Also interesting that he has determined for himself where he is “most needed,” indulging in what is basically a hobby that requires little sacrifice of his time, money, personal priorities and skills, quite unlike the sacrifices called for in nurturing (or even assuring the proper nurture of) real children.

If you don’t keep track and can’t recall any, then how do you know if you ever actually did help any “needy real children”? If you answer “I must have because I’m a good person,” you will earn a failing grade.

David, not only does he claim to have helped real children, he has also claimed he escaped the Holocaust.

It’s pretty funny that he hasn’t ever helped real children, because he used to be a teacher. Of course, it was a Catholic school, so you’ll understand how different Catholic school teachers were (I hope they aren’t now) if you’ve read The Chocolate Wars.

Mr. Dunkle says, “I taught in all kinds of schools, most of them in the poorer sections of New York City..”

Here’s what he DIDN’T do to “rescue” real children: 1. Adopt as many needy students as he could, to bring his per capita annual family income down to $300 (which was my family’s income; so you know he could have raised a lot more kids than he did). (By the way, that’s $2,600 in 2015 dollars.) 2. Help the parents in those “poorer sections” by supporting them in their efforts to improve their neighborhoods with his knowledge, his skills and his personal efforts. 3. Learned about the three modes of child abuse to protect them from the priests and nuns. 4. Fought for sex education in the classroom to save children from having children.

I’ve probably done all that stuff (well, not the sex ed thing) at one time or another. But when I reached the mid-thirties, my country passed a law that enabled desperadoes like Chuck to do in others. And they’re still at it. I just try to go where I’m most needed (and often don’t get there)..

Th fact is, Mr. Dunkle, you don’t care about what happens to real kids. Whatever spirit of charity might have motivated you (to do the good deeds you allege) left you a long time ago in your resolve to be a “hero.”

You cannot entertain the thought that the real child you compelled to be born faces a 25% chance of sexual abuse, is practically predestined for school failure if its mother was malnourished, a heavy smoker or a substance abuser during her pregnancy. You are so fixated on being a hero that you are more than willing to let them die or kill. That is very, very sad.

Mr. Dunkle, when challenged to care for real children so that they don’t grow up to be the next Ted Bundy, much less subjected to a childhood of poverty, stultification, ignorance, abuse or exploitation, says, “The lives of real children begin when they are less than a second old . . .” While he is mistaken about his authority to make such a claim, nevertheless he refuses to protect them against the intrauterine effects of maternal smoking, malnutrition and substance abuse.

All you have to do is prove me wrong; I’ll apologize. Why not become a guardian ad litem in family court– foregoing the pay and reimbursement, of course. That would be a true sacrifice of your time, talents and money.

You cannot bring yourself to think objectively about your opposition to abortion, the likelihood that it’s based on your personal feelings rather than on the reality that any child who is alive needs more than simply physical existence to become human. Ask any soldier who’s killed in face-to-face combat.

See? You really can’t contemplate the very strong possibility that you are not a “hero,” but instead simply ensuring that real children will be abused and even murdered, thanks to your assistance. You can’t bring yourself to think that “accessory to the crime” might mean you.